That's probably an attempt to be funny. I'm not trying to defend this particular photo or photographer but comments like that are a good method to prevent this forum to be flooded with too demandingartist concepts or views.

When I saw your post, I fully expected to click that link and see this, (but because of non-photographic reasons).

Is there a simple way to explain why someone would shoot a camera like that Alpa, over a camera like an H? Wider lenses? Built-in shift? Can you trust the framing of a viewfinder like that? Do you just set it on f32 and not worry about focus?

Is there a simple way to explain why someone would shoot a camera like that Alpa, over a camera like an H? Wider lenses? Built-in shift? Can you trust the framing of a viewfinder like that? Do you just set it on f32 and not worry about focus?

Probably, except for them fuzzy water pictures cause you know he ain't using a Dalsa Chip cause I think that Dalsa film goes a crazy after a minute or so.

Is there a simple way to explain why someone would shoot a camera like that Alpa, over a camera like an H? Wider lenses? Built-in shift? Can you trust the framing of a viewfinder like that? Do you just set it on f32 and not worry about focus?

can someone explain why anyone would shoot anything else but an Alpa?If you set f32 you don't have to worry about focus at all, indeed. Due to diffraction everything is so soft that you don't have to care about focus.

When I saw your post, I fully expected to click that link and see this, (but because of non-photographic reasons).

Is there a simple way to explain why someone would shoot a camera like that Alpa, over a camera like an H? Wider lenses? Built-in shift? Can you trust the framing of a viewfinder like that? Do you just set it on f32 and not worry about focus?

Honestly I was choosing between the two:-)

With wide lenses some leave them on infinity at f11, level the camera and shoot away...

Hmm, well the Alpa are some beautifully crafted cameras. For shooting Architecture though, especially interiors, I prefer the focus control that my Arca affords. Using tilts and swings, I can achieve sharpness that is just ridiculous and not attainable on a plate camera (other than the likes of the Artec). Also, I like to have a lot of lenses at my disposal and have you seen how long the helical mounts are for the longer lenses? I can fit my Arca, digital back, charger, cables and Rodenstocks (35, 45, 55, 70, 90, 135) in a Pelican Studio Cruzer.

Still, I wouldn't mind me a 12 Max and the new 23 HR.... DAMN those sexy cameras

I'm using the 69 F Line Compact which has served me well for 15 years. I have used the F Metric extensively which I also like... but now that the M Line Two is out (at the same weight as the Metric) I'll be going that route. I've been looking at the dimensions of the M Line and think I can just fit it into the Pelican : )

If you set f32 you don't have to worry about focus at all, indeed. Due to diffraction everything is so soft that you don't have to care about focus.

So now i have a new thing to be paranoid about -- diffraction. Why put an f32 or 45 on a lens, if it's not sharp? Or, why not put a red or green label on every lens sold, showing the non-diffraction "actually sharp" ranges of fstops?

I do know that on that Contax 80mm lens (yes, Zeiss), that, at f2 wide open, there was absolutely nowhere that was tack sharp. Not even close. So my green-line range would certainly not reach down to f2 on that Contax lens. With a reputation on quality, why not just make it 2.8, and be able to tell people it was sharp? F2 was like adding a SoftarII -- automatic Barbara Walters/Doris Day territory.

What is a generall acceptable "green line" range for a Technical Camera lens? No smaller than f11?

and how exactly do you make the lens on the D3x stay locked in the same spot and the sensor move independently up/down or left/right Bernard?

on the other hand you could be right: if you're going to stitch why use a D3x, why not a Sureshot, or an i-Phone?

What I was going to do was take the Canon 45TS or the 24TS, and get some kind of metal rod or bracket, and JB Weld the rod to the chassis of the tilt lens. And then attach an RRS type tripod bracket to that. You'd have to pretty much chuck the resellability of the lens, but if it worked, it would be great. The LENS would mount to the tripod, and the camera body would doing the moving around. The lens stays fixed, so that it stitches pixel to pixel without any issues (or lens cast mess).

No idea if it would work, but I see no reason why it wouldn't. I'm almost amazed that Canon came out with a whole new generation of those TS lenses, and didn't add the ability to mount the LENS to the tripod, instead of the body. Because, if you're going to reach for a TS lens, pretty good odds that you're stitching. If Canon had added some high-tech-looking brackets and mounts to those TS lenses, they could have charged double compared to the previous generation. Stick on a James Russell-manufactured Sinar/Alpa/Arca/Cambo sticker, and the value goes up even more.

The other unknown in this topic is how well CS4 does with stitching files that are not perfect. The AutoMerge feature of CS4 is worth the upgrade price, alone. It is amazingly effective. CS4 might make all these other issues not worth messing with -- just get close, and let CS4 AutoMerge do the rest.